Practice of Ethics vis-a-vis Technology

Solution Preview

Dear Student,
You will notice that per each question, a discussion/narrative that directly answers the problems presented is provided. Some are longer due to the need of far lengthy explanations. Please take note that you cannot, under any circumstance submit these answers as your own. You must take care to use this solution only as your guide and adopt it into your own version and views. I hope this has been of use to you. Thank you for using Brainmass.

Sincerely,
OTA 105878/Xenia Jones
-------------------------------

ETHICS AND TECHNOLOGY
Part A

1. In the aftermath of the recent global economic recession many technology companies are finding it difficult to make a profit or even survive. Given the difficult economic conditions, according to Kant's theory, would these businesses be morally justified in using any tactics to gain advantage over their competition as long as those tactics are not prohibited by law? Carefully explain why or why not, according to Kant's theory. Be specific.

Answer:
Immanuel Kant, the father of Sociology gave us the process of critical enquiry which resulted to the adaptation of the scientific process into social research. In terms of ethical positions, many refer to his ideas on what later on turned out to be utilitarianism - a philosophy usually referred to when one studies social systems. utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of the action is justified and determined by the overall result. In short, the end justifies the means in a social responsibility kind of way. It is a kind of consequentialist action wherein the moral worth of the actions taken is given justification by the outcome. Say for example in this current economic recession - companies are losing capital and investors, loans are not being paid, people are losing money, and with the economy suffering brought about by economic inactivity and the weakness of the dollar, jobs lost are little offset by the small set of jobs created via government incentive. Banks and financial institutions can only do so much to not throw out families and individuals defaulting on their mortgages. There are a host of horror stories of families, middle class families, living in cars. Were the actions of the banks foreclosing justified? In Las Vegas, huge numbers of developments and real estate ready for selling have remained empty with the nation's largest developers on the brink of bankruptcy. So companies let go of so much assets to remain afloat and let go, as much as possible of people once employed who are now redundant in the jobs they have. Some companies fight tooth and nail to not 'pay-out' redundancy packages to save some more on the side to keep afloat.
Is this justified? Let's say for example that companies let the defaulting families keep their homes, let's say for example, that the company keep all employees who have no use in the jobs they were first hired for since there is no need for that position anymore - does this serve the company any at all when the financial lifeline must be protected to remain afloat just until the economy picks up again, for, if a company cannot remain and totally goes under, then there is no more possibility for said company to recover and to rehire those they let go. For Kant, redundancies and repossessions of properties then is morally justified. Therefore, businesses, as long as the tactics they employ are within the bounds of the law, and as long as the results are what matters, then the tactics and actions employed are acceptable. Take for instance ...